Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
History
Section 3 of the US Constitution
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
The Red High lighted part was Changed by the 17th Amendment.
Prior to the 17th
Additional Information
The impetus for changing the Constitution lay in the perceived corruption and inefficiency that marked indirect elections, and the 17th Amendment was part of the larger Progressive movement that called for more open, accessible, and responsive government. At the same time, states instituted direct primaries for federal and state offices, which presumably gave more power to the voters and less power to party elites.
Learn More
With a central location, guarded by the Capital Police, is it easier to bribe a congressman now or was it easier when the Senate was controlled by the state legislatures and it cost nothing to run for the Senate...
What the 17th did
17th Amendment
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution..
Learn More
This is a content preview space you can use to get your audience interested in what you have to say so they can’t wait to learn and read more. Pull out the most interesting detail that appears on the page and write it here.
After the 17th was Ratified
Additional Information
- Notice that the voters still elect their State legislators and since these state legislators now have less to do on a national level (pretty much NOTHING), they can spend all their time messing up your state with different state laws... AND THEY DO!!!
- Further notice that the Senator pretty much does whatever he wants to, there is NO oversight as to what a Senator does.. And he is still elected for 6 years.
- How often does your Senators return your phone calls? If your state legislature voted the Senator into office, bet he would return His call... So if you wanted to voice your opinion to your state legislators and they were to call the Senator, you think you might get an answer? So, is voting for your Senator really that important to you? Or is making sure your Senator votes the for the best interest of your state government?
- Senators couldn't care less about what your state government wants anymore. If they can spread their lies with the money they receive from lobbyists, large donors and party pacts, they return to Washington... Just so long as they can fool a majority of the voters, thats all that matters...
Learn More
Citizens no longer had a connection to the Senate because the money needed to campaign for election and re-election resulted in only Lobbyists, large donors and party officials having any sway as to how the Senator would vote on specific legislation.
Before this, you could contact the state legislators that represent your district and the Senator would have called them back and then would have called you back...
So, is it worth your time to seek out and vote for a Senator that wont ever listen to you, or is it better to have your state legislature control your senator to represent your state in the federal government
Reasons for doing it
Money purchased the 17th Amendment to give the Rich more Representation than the average voter...
- First, picking one Senator out of say 150 State legislators (this is where they usually came from) was a difficult task. It was so difficult that on some occasions a state might be short a Senator every now and then...
- Electoral deadlocks were another issue. Because state legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on their ability to agree. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending representatives to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation in the Senate.[14] Deadlocks started to become an issue in the 1850s, with a deadlocked Indiana legislature allowing a Senate seat to sit vacant for two years.[15] Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked across 20 states;[13] in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903.[16] The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that Oregon's legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.[16]
- After the turn of the century, momentum for reform grew rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with Cosmopolitan, and championed the cause of direct election with muckraking articles and strong advocacy of reform.
- Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.
The Issues
Money buys representation in the Senate, not your vote or state loyalty.
Senators are out of control... We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the State legislatures... With a few exceptions, just think what kind of senate we would have if the state legislatures elected their Senators as they did before the 17th Amendment... There are 100 Senators - 2 from each state to make each state equal and REPRESENT THE STATE GOVERNMENT,
but these Senators NOW only represent their Parties, their Donors and their Lobbyists in popular elections - - State governments be damned... Billionaires and corporate lobbyists would have to spread their bribes across 5000+ state legislators if the 17th were repealed rather than 100 Senators... Not to mention crossing 50+ different states and many many more law enforcement jurisdictions that could arrest them for their activities... Multiplying their lobbying costs 100 times or more!!! Right now, they are safe bribing Congressmen in one location (Washington DC) guarded by the Capital police...
US Chamber of Commerce buying their representation with 1.4 Billion $$$...
Voters are only the dumbed down pawns because we gave up our states power... Demand it back!!! Demand your state legislature get on board with the Conventionofstates.com Repeal the 17th Amendment!!! Make this THE issue in your state legislative elections in the coming months...
www.followthemoney.org
www.opensecrets.org
We need a government that is less corrupt and more accountable to their state and their voters... Not lobbyists, party or donors... This can be done by repealing the 17th Amendment making the Senators accountable to the state legislatures putting greater pressure on the state and national politicians...
Once the Senate is Reined in, the House has to follow...
This should also be reflected in the states, city and county governments should elect state senators and the voters should elect House members... This would spread out the effect of people and or organizations like lobbyists from exerting as much control as they do..
Learn More
Convention of States - Conventionofstates.com
Followthemoney.org
opensecrets.org
May 31, 2013, is the 100th anniversary of the 17th Amendment
Additional Information
Friday, May 31, 2013, marks the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the 17th Amendment, which transferred control of Senate elections from state legislators to voters. Wendy Schiller, associate professor of political science, recently co-authored a paper published by the Brookings Institute, which argues that the amendment remains a “promise unfulfilled.” She spoke with Courtney Coelho about her findings.
The impetus for changing the Constitution lay in the perceived corruption and inefficiency that marked indirect elections, and the 17th Amendment was part of the larger Progressive movement that called for more open, accessible, and responsive government. At the same time, states instituted direct primaries for federal and state offices, which presumably gave more power to the voters and less power to party elites. This paper is based on a larger project which investigates the dynamics of Senate elections in the indirect system using an original data set of roll call votes for U.S. senator taken in all state legislatures from 1871-1913. Wendy J. Schiller and Charles Stewart III find that while U.S. Senate elections in the indirect age were more conflicted than previously believed, there are strong parallels to today’s Senate in terms of the types of candidates that run for Senate, the role of money in elections, the role of partisan elections, and the nature of Senate ideological and legislative behavior. More broadly, Schiller and Stewart suggest that the 17th Amendment has failed to deliver on its promise, and has produced a Senate that is even less responsive to voters than it was under the indirect election system.